´óÏó´«Ã½

Commentators say who they think won the second prime-ministerial TV debate.

The Nick Clegg as the winner:

"If either Labour or the Conservatives were hoping that the second party leaders' debate in Bristol last night would see the Liberal Democrat genie forced back into the bottle, it was soon obvious they were destined to be disappointed... Some have suggested that these debates amount to little more than 'X Factor politics'. That seems unfair. The indications are that these events are cutting through to the public. They seem to be engaging people who might not otherwise take an interest. That is something to cherish, not scorn. As for Mr Clegg, his remarkable adventure continues."

Mr Clegg performed as well as in the previous debate:

"Last night probably won't have changed much, interesting though some of it was. (But why a second question on immigration? Ratings?) Clegg used the grown-up word 'theological' but was sunnily plausible; Gordon showed formidable command of details, and formidable lack of command of his features; David Cameron alternated between splendid anger and a sense of repetition fatigue. But not much changed... Perhaps the honest talking comes later. Right now, the exact policy on public service cuts, or the colour of the tie, or the dialling of the Sage and Hero element in each leader's psyche, is less important than whether they represent a possible breakout from what the electorate sees as stale and shabby politics. At the moment enough seem to think that Clegg does represent such a possibility."

that David Cameron won, that Gordon Brown did much better and Mr Clegg was outclassed:

"Whatever the polls say, Nick Clegg has only succeeded in one thing: he galvanised both David Cameron and Gordon Brown into giving better performances than you might have thought possible at this time last week. Cameron made a genuinely convincing case by managing to present abstract arguments about values and political philosophy in sufficiently concrete terms to make sense to the ordinary voter... Brown too did much better than he had last week. He got bogged down in Budget-speak details occasionally and he was completely unable to counter Cameron's accusations about Labour lies. But the real surprise was the extent to which he utterly repudiated his courtship of the LibDems. I have to say that I respect him for this: he has clearly decided to go down with integrity rather than to cling ignomiously to the desperate possibility of a coalition."

Political blogger that Mr Brown did well:

"The Brown camp will be pleased with their man's performance though his denial on what is in party leaflets on pensioner bus passes might be something that he'll regret - for it does not take much for opponents to show that his statement was untrue."

Mr Clegg won the debate again and asks why Mr Cameron is appearing to fail to shine:

"Because the sincerity deficit shows, with slogans, mantras and an advertising man's repetitions. Up against the earnest Nick and sobersides Gordon, Cameron sounds oddly fake. Television is mercilessly revealing, and lack of conviction tells. He needed to retake command, but couldn't quite. A coalition with Clegg? It looked unlikely."

Pro-Labour a note of caution about the validity of the various post-debate polls:

"In a population of 9 million, a sample of 1000 will have a standard + or - 3% margin of error for each leader. So if you report a support level of 30%, then margin of error in your poll to achieve a 95% Confidence is between 33-27. On a three way split therefore a single poll can be read as Candidate A 30-36; Candidate B 28-34 Candidate C 27-33. So Candidate C could be 3 points ahead of Candidate A (or 9 points behind).
What's more, given the speed and scale of the polling, I wouldn't be surprised if we were looking at an eight point spread for each leader for some of these polls, which in a three way race makes the results effectively meaningless."